mdr_request_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses the blocking/polling behavior (call again with the same sessionId), the permission restriction on other tools, the rationale (unsubmitted @comment markers), and the post-condition (only address listed comments, ignore other markers). This is precisely the operational context annotations would normally provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-sequenced: purpose, trigger phrasings, session mechanics, critical restriction, then post-condition. Every sentence is informative, but it is a dense wall of text and the 'ignore unsubmitted markers' point is reinforced multiple times; minor tightening would not hurt.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description defines the result vocabulary ('batch', 'done', 'not finished') and instructs on each outcome. For an interactive polling tool with a subtle safety restriction, everything required to call it correctly — init, continuation, waiting behavior, and post-batch handling — is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between filePaths and sessionId ('pass the sessionId from the previous result (without filePaths)') and the polling semantics — information that no per-property schema description conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb + resource ('Open markdown files in mdr (md-redline)') and the intent: the USER reviews and leaves comments while the agent waits. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing 'The user is the reviewer here; you wait and then address what they write,' making clear this is not the tool for the agent to comment or ask on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives the selection condition ('Use this whenever the user wants to read, review, or comment on a doc themselves') reinforced with concrete trigger phrasings. It also provides scenario mechanics (filePaths for new sessions, sessionId for continuation and re-polling) and an exclusion in the IMPORTANT block: other tools must not act on files under review while waiting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.